Skip to main content

About this Show

KPIX 5 News at Noon

News; News/Business. Frank Mallicoat and Michelle Griego. New.




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 32






Russia 17, U.s. 11, Us 5, Mr. Snowden 5, Pakistan 4, United States 3, Edward Snowden 3, America 3, Garrett 2, Medvedev 2, Bob 2, Nsa 2, Olympics 2, Nissan 2, Hannah Anderson 2, James Dimaggio 2, Lahore 2, Syria 2, Surveiling U.s. 1, Iran 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CBS    KPIX 5 News at Noon    News; News/Business. Frank  
   Mallicoat and Michelle Griego. New.  

    August 9, 2013
    12:00 - 12:31pm PDT  

searching the area around t solano county fairgrounds... now late details o >> your realtime captioner: linda marie macdonald. we're following two developing stories now. after searching the area around the solano county fairgrounds, now late details on a new focus in the search for sandra coke. the federal investigator went missing last weekend.
we're also keeping our eye on the white house where the president is expected to make his first comments after canceling his summit with president putin. good afternoon, i'm juliette goodrich. >> hi, everyone. i'm frank mallicoat. michelle griego is off. breaking news on the amber alert for a missing san diego teen. deputies in cascade, idaho, say they have found james dimaggio's car. witnesses also spotted two people who matched the description of dimaggio and the missing teen camping in the area. authorities have been looking for them since a woman and child's body were found in dimaggio's burned home in san diego county sunday. they believe he kidnapped the woman's 16-year-old daughter hannah anderson. police believe dimaggio booby- trapped his blue nissan versa. authorities are searching the car to make sure it is safe. horseback riders came across a man and girl matching their description on wednesday.
>> came across a man and a woman that they believed were possibly james dimaggio and hannah anderson, the two individuals we have been obviously looking for, for the last week. this morning, about 8:00, the blue nissan versa was discovered covered in brush, the license plates had been removed. but local law enforcement in the area were able to confirm through the v.i.n. number that the vehicle did belong to dimaggio. >> authorities say they appeared to be camping, backpacking and tent. search teams hope they will find hannah alive. right now we're standing by for a press conference by president obama. a live look inside the white house. the president will address the latest terror alert. he is expected to answer reporter questions on the security situation that led the government to close nearly two dozen embassies and consulates
in the middle east and northern africa. top u.s. and russian diplomats are working in washington to repair damage caused after russia granted edward snowden asylum. secretary of state john kerry and his russian counterpart opened a meeting a couple of hours ago. kerry says they need to make progress on global trouble spots including syria. meantime, the state department is warning americans to avoid traveling to pakistan. that's after a specific threat forced the consulate there to evacuate. tina kraus has the latest. >> reporter: a threat to the u.s. consulate in pakistan's second largest city lahore has forced american diplomats out. the u.s. government ordered all nonessential staff to leave the area because of a possible attack. the consulate was already scheduled to be closed through sunday for a muslim holiday. >> this is a period where historically you have seen terrorist groups trying to
attack. and so that adds to the sense of anxiety. >> reporter: the state department is advising u.s. citizens not to travel to pakistan. but u.s. officials say the consulate closure in lahore is not related to the closing of 19 u.s. diplomatic out posts throughout the middle east and north africa earlier this week. u.s. intelligence officials intercepted a message from al qaeda's top leader about plans for a major attack. the state department also ordered americans out of yemen and issued a global travel alert through the end of august. security forces are on high alert across the muslim world as millions celebrate the end of ramadan. gunmen shattered celebrations in quetta friday morning kill at least six-pack stan anies outside -- this is a cbs news special report. caused the evacuation today
of the u.s. consulate in lahore, pakistan. we are told the president is going to start by announcing he intends to cooperate with congress in working out reforms to the national security agency which a rising number of members of congress in both parties have said is infringeing on the privacy of millions of americans. our chief white house correspondent major garrett is in the east room of the white house. and as we await the president, major, what is this all about? and why now all of a sudden? >> why now, bob, is because its president wants to wade in and be responsive to the criticism in congress, that the surveillance programs are too sweeping and the public doesn't understand enough about them. so the president for the first time since the government surveillance and foreign surveillance act of 1978 was put in motion will call for a privacy add o have-- advocate before the secretive court that
approves all requests by the government to surveil either e-mail, internet or telephone data in this country. just one example of how wide-sweeping that surveillance is and how this court is kind of a rubber stamp n 2012, there were 1788 requests put before this court. every single one of them was approved. today the president will say there needs to be an adversarial voice in there to say the privacy and civil liberties need to be a jude cated before the secret court before the surveillance can go forward. that is a historic change the president will call for. congress has been asking for it. the president expects some action on this change by the end of this year, bob? >> all right, and here comes the president now. he's also going to announce he will point-- appoint a commission to report back in 60 days on improvements that can be made. >> over the past few weeks i've been you can talk you can about what i believe should be our number one priority of the country, building a better bargain for the middle class and for americans who want to work their way not middle class.
at the same time, i'm focused on my number one responsibility as commander in chief. and that's keeping the american people safe. in recent days we've been reminded, once again, about the threats to our nation. as i said at national defense university back in may, in meeting those threats, we have to strike the right balance between protecting our security and preserving our freedoms. and as part of this rebalancing, i called for a review of our surveillance programs. unfortunately rather than an orderly and lawful process to debate these issues and come up with appropriate reforms, repeated leaks of classified information have initiated the debate in a very passionate but not always fully informed way. now keep in mind that as a senator i expressed a healthy skepticism about these programs. and as president i have taken steps to make sure that they have strong oversight by all three
branches of government, and clear safeguards to prevent abuse and protect the rights of the american people. but given the history of abuse by governments, it's right to ask questions about surveillance. particularly as technology is reshaping every aspect of our lives. i'm also mindful of how these issues are viewed overseas. because american leadership around the world depends upon the example of american democracy and american openness. because what make us different from other countries is not simply our ability to secure our nation, it's the way we do it. with open debate and democratic process. in other words, it's not enough for me as president to have confidence in these programs. the american people need to have confidence in them as well. and that's why over the last few weeks i've consulted members of congress who come at this issue from many different perspectives. i've asked the privacy and civil liberties oversight
board to review where our counterterrorism efforts and our values come in. and i directed my national security team to be more transparent and pursue reforms of our la you-- laws and practise. so today i would like to discuss four specific step, not all inclusive but some specific steps that we're going to be taking very shortly to move the debate forward. first, i will work with congress to pursue appropriate reforms to section 215 of the patriot act. the program that collects telephone records. as i've said, this program is an important tool in our effort to disrupt terrorist plots. and it does not allow the government to listen to any phone calls without a warrant. but given the scale of this program, i understand the concern of those who would worry that it could be subject to abuse. so after having a dialogue with members of congress and civil libertarians, i believe that there are steps we can take to give american people additional confidence
that there are additional safeguards against abuse. for instance, we can take steps to put in place greater oversight, greater transparency, and constraints on the use of this authority. so i look forward to working with congress to meet those objectives. second, i'll work with congress to improve the public's confidence in the oversight conducted by the foreign intelligence surveillance corp. known as the fisc. it was created by congress to provide judicial review of certain intelligence activities so that a federal judge must find that our actions are consistent with the constitution. however, to build greater confidence, i think we should consider some additional changes to the fisc. one of the concerns that people raise is that a judge reviewing a request from the government to conduct surveillance only hears one side of the story. it may tilt it too far in favor of security. may not pay enough attention to liberty. and while i've got confidence in the court and
i think they've done a fine job, i think we can provide greater assurances that the court is looking at these issues from both perspectives. security and privacy. so specifically, we can take steps to make sure civil liberties, concerns have an independent voice in appropriate cases by ensuring that the government's position is challenged by an adversary. number three, we can and must be more transparent. so i've directed the intelligence community to make public as much information about these programs as possible. we have already declassified unprecedented information about the nsa. but we can go further. so at my direction the department of justice will make public the legal rational for the government's collection activities under section 215 of the patriot act. the nsa is taking steps to put in place a full-time civil liberties and privacy officer. and released information that details its mission, authorities and oversight. and finally the intelligence
community is creating a web site that will serve as a hub for further transparency. and this will give americans and the world the ability to learn more about what our intelligence communities does and what it doesn't do; how it carries out its mission; and why it does so. fourth, we're forming a high-level group of outside experts to review our entire intelligence communications technologies. we need new thinking for a newera. we now have to unravel terrorist plots by finding a needle in a hey stake of global telecommunications. and meanwhile technology has given governments, including our own, unprecedented capability to monitor communications. so i'm tasking this independent group to step back and review our capabilities. particularly our surveillance technologies. and they'll consider how we can maintain the trust of the people, how we can make sure that they're absolutely
is no abuse in terms of how these surveillance technologies are used. ask how surveillance impacts our foreign policy, particularly in an age when more and more information is becoming public. and they will provide an interim report in 60 days and a final report by the end of this year so that we can move forward with a better understanding of how these programs impact our security, our privacy, and our foreign policy. so all these steps are designed to insurance that the american people can trust that our efforts are in line with our interests and our values. and to others around the world, i want to make clear once again that america is not interested in spying on ode people. our intelligence is focused above all on finding the information that's necessary to protect our people and in many cases protect our allies. it's true. we have significant capabilities. what's also true is we show a restraint that many governments around the world
don't even think to do. refuse to show. and that includes, by the way, some of america's most vocal critics. we shouldn't forget the difference between the ability of our government to collect information on-line under strict guidelines and for narrower purposes, and the willingness of some other governments to throw their own citizens in prison for what they say on-line. and let me close with one additional thought. the men and women of our intelligence community work every single day to keep us safe because they love this country, and believe in our values. they're patriots. and i believe that those who have lawfully raised their voices on behalf of privacy and civil liberties are also patriots who love our country and want it to live up to our highest ideas. so this is how we're going to resolve our differences in the united states, through vigorous public debate, guided by our constitution, with reference for our history as a nation
of laws, and with respect for the facts. so with that i'm going to take some questions. and let's see who we've got here. we're going start with julyie pace of ap. >> thank you, mr. president. i wanted to ask about some of the foreign policy fallout from the disclosure of the nsa programs that you discussed. your spokesman said yesterday that there's no question that the u.s. relationship with russia has gotten worse since vladimir putin took office. how much of that decline do you attribute to mr. putin, given that you seem to have had a good working relationship with his predecessor? also, will there be any additional punitive measures taken against russia for granting asylum to edward snowden, or is cancelling the suspect summit really all you can do given the host of issues the u.s. needs russian cooperation for. thank you. >> good. i think there's always been some tension in the u.s.-russian relationship after the fall of the soviet union. there's been cooperation in some areas.
there's been competition in others. it is true that in my first four years in working with president medvedev we made a lot of progress. we got start done, or the start 2 done. we were able to cooperate together on iran sanctions. they provided us help in terms of supplying our troops in afghanistan. we were able to get russia into the wto which is not just good for russia, it's good for our companies and businesses because they are more likely then to follow international norms and rules. so there's been a lot of good work that has been done. and that is going to continue to be done. what's also true is that when president putin, who was prime minister when medvedev was president, came back into power, i think we saw more rhetoric on the russian side that was anti-american, that played into some of the old stereotypes about the cold war contest between the
united states and russia. and i have encouraged mr. putin to think forward, as opposed to backwards, on those issues, with mixed success. and i think the latest ep seed-- episode is just one more in a number of emerging differences that we've seen over the last several months around syria, around human rights issues, where you know t is probably appropriate for us to take a pause, reassess where it is that russia is going, what our core interests are, and calculate the relationship so that we're doing things that are good for the united states, and hopefully good for russia as well but recognizing that there are just going to be some differences and we're not going to be able to
completely disguise them. and that's okay. keep in mind that although i'm not attending the summit, i'll still be going to st. petersberg because russia is hosting the g-20. that's important business in terms of our economy and our jobs and all the issues that are a concern to americans. i know that one questions that's been raised is how do we approach the olympics. i want to just make very clear right now, i do not think it's appropriate to boycott the olympics. we've got a bunch of americans out there who are training hard, who are doing everything they can to succeed. nobody's more offended than me by some of the anti-gay and lesbian legislation that you've been seeing in russia. but as i said, just this week, i have spoken out against that not just with respect to russia but a number of other countries where we continue to do work with them, but we have a strong disagreement on this issue.
and one of the things i'm really looking forward to is maybe some gay and lesbian athletes bringing home the gold or silver or bronze, which i think would go a long way in rejecting the kind of attitudes that we're seeing there. and if russia doesn't have gay or lesbian athletes, then it would probably make their team weaker. >> keep in mind that our decision to not participate in the summit was not simply around mr. snowden. it had to do with the fact that, frankly, on a whole range of issues where we think we can make some progress, russia has not moved. and so we don't consider that strictly punitive we're going to asset-- assess where the relationship can advance u.s. interests and increase peace and stability
and prosperity around the world where. it k we're going to keep on working with them. where we have differences, we're going to say so clearly. and my hope is that over time mr. putin and russia recognize that rather than a zero sum competition, in fact f the two countries are working together, we can probably advance the betterment of both peoples. chuck todd. >> thank you, mr. president. given that you just announced a whole bunch of reforms based on, essentially, the leaks that edward snowden made on all of these surveillance programs, does that change-- has your mind-set changed about him? he is now more whistle-blower than he is a hacker as you called him at one point, or somebody that should be filed charges. and should he be provided more protection? is he a patriot? you just used those words. and just to follow up on the
personal, i want to foum on a personal -- >> i want to make sure everybody is asking one question, would be helpful. >> i understand t was part of a question that you didn't answer. can you get-- can you get stuff done with russia, big tough done without having a good personal relationship with putin? >> i don't have a bad personal relationship with putin am when we have conversations they're candid, they're blunt. oftentimes they're constructive. i know the press likes to focus on body language and he's kind that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom. but the truth is that when we're in conversations together, oftentimes it's very productive. so the issue here really has to do with where do they want to take russia. it's substantive on a policy front. and no, right now this is just a matter of where mr. putin and the russian
people want to go. i think if they are looking forward into the 21st century, and how they can advance their economy and make sure that some of our joint concerns around counterterrorism are managed effectively, then i think we can work together. if issues are framed as, if you as a-- russia should be against it or we're going to be finding ways where we can poke each other at every opportunity, then probably we don't get as much stuff done. see now i've forgotten your first question which presumably was the more important one. i don't think mr. snowden was a patriot. as i said in my opening remarks, i called for a thorough review of our surveillance operations before mr. snowden made these leaks. my preference, and i think
the american's people's preference would have been for a lawful, orderly, examination of these laws. a thoughtful, fact-based debate that would then lead us to a better place. because i never made claims that all its surveillance technologies that have developed since the time some of these laws had been put in place, somehow didn't require potentially some additional reforms. that's exactly what i call for. so the fact is, is that mr. snowden has been charged with three felonies. if, in fact, he believes that what he did was right then like every american citizen, can come here, appear before the court with a lawyer. and make his case.
if the concern was that somehow this was the only way to get this information out to the public, i signed an executive order well mr. mr. snowden leaked this information that provided whistle-blower protection to the intelligence community, for the first time. so there were other avenues available for somebody whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions. but having said that, once the leaks have happened, what we've seen is information come out in dribs and in drabs, sometimes coming outsideways. once the information is out, the administration comes in, tries to correct the record but by that time, it's too late or we've moved on. and a general impression has, i think, taken hold not only among the american public but also around the world,
that shower's out there wily nilly just sucking in information on everybody, and doing what we please with it. now that's not the case. our laws specifically prohibit us from surveiling u.s. persons without a warranting. and there are a whole range of safeguards that have been put in place to make sure that that basic principles is abided by. but what is clear is that whether because of the instinctive bias of the intelligence community to keep everything very close, and probably what is a fair criticism is my assumption that if we had checks and balances from the courts and congress, that that traditional system of checks and balances would be enough to give people assurance
that these programs were run properly. you know, that assumption, i think, proved to be undermined by what happened after the leaks. i think people have questions about this program. and so as a consequence, i think it is important for us to go ahead and answer these questions. what i am going to be pushing the ic to do is rather than have a trunk come out here and a leg out there and a tail come out there, let's just put the whole elephant out there so people know exactly what they're looking at. let's examine what is working, what's not. are there additional protections that can be put in place? and let's move forward. and there's no doubt that mr. snowden's leaks triggered a much more rapid and passionate response than
would have been the case if i had simply appointed this review board to go through, and i sat down with congress and we had worked this thing through. it would have been less exciting. it would not have generated as much press. i actually think we would have gotten to the same place. and we would have done so without putting at risk our national security and some very vital ways that we are able to get intelligence that we need to secure the country. major garrett. >> thank you, mr. president. i would like to ask you about this debate that's playing itself out in editorial pages and blogoschfear ian the senate caw sus-- caucus about the choice you will event you allly mack by the federal reserve chairman. there is a perception among democrats that larry summers has the inside track and perhaps you made assures about that. the vice chair of the federal reserve, there are many women that believe they bleaking the glass ceiling would be important and
important. are you annoyed by this debate, do you find it unseemly and dow believe this will be one of the most important if not the most important economic decisions you will make in the remainder of your presidency? >> it is definitely one of the most important economic decisions that i will make in the remainder of my presidency. the federal reserve chairman is not just one of the most important economic policymakers in america, its-- he or she is one of the most important policy makers in the world. and that person, presumably, will stay on after i'm president. so this along with supreme court appointments is probably as important a decision as i make as president. i have a range of outstanding candidates. you've mentioned two of them. mr. summers and mr. yel yell-- yellin, ms. yellin. and they're both terrific people i think its
perception that mr. summers might have an insight track simply had to do with a bunch of attacks that i was hearing on mr. summers preemptively which is sort of a standard washington exercise, that i don't like. because when somebody has worked hard for me and worked hard on behalf of the american people, and i know the quality of those people and i see them getting slapped around in the president for no reason, before they've even been nominated for anything, then i want to make sure that somebody is standing up for them. i felt the same way when people were attacking susan rice before she was nominated for anything. so you know, i tend to defend folks who i think have done a good job and don't deserve attacks. but i consider them both outstanding candidates. my main criteria, i've stated this before but i
want to repeat it, my main criteria for the fed reserv reserve-- reserve chairman is somebody who understands they've got a dual mandate. a critical part of the job is making sure that we keep inflation in check, that our monetary policy is sound, that the dollar is sound. those are all critical components of the job. and we've seen what happens when the fed's not paying attention. we saw prior to paul volcker coming into place, inflation shooting up. in ways that really damaged the real economy. but the other mandate is full employment. and right now, you know, if you look at the biggest challenges we have, its challenge is not inflation, the challenge is we've still got too many people out of work, too many long-term unemployed. too much slack in the economy.